Conservatives

[rabbit]

He likes drugs.  Anyway, a lot of people join gangs because they have to.  You're a WASP or Yuppy or of the sort, and you clearly don't understand how gangs work.  Execution of a gang member often leads to the gangs going after cops for a while, which is the exact opposite of deterring crime.

[CrAz3D]

How is the death penalty revenge?  I'm sure we've put someone to death whose victim was totally alone in life, and besides, thats your opinion.

You're taking my gang example wrong.  Gang members get their families involved...if their older brother dies because he committed some haneous crime then I'd be willing to be his little brothers think twice before joinning...same if he dies in a gang related gang v. gang fight (although, they might just join to avenge his brother's death)

[Grok]

Sounds like you're arguing that criminals should be treated differently under the law if they are gang members, or that you're arguing the courts should practice gang-type retributions.  I hope neither or you're not considering the consequences on our justice system if the courts start doling out uneven punishments for equal crimes.

[CrAz3D]

Where did I say that?  I just gave an example as to when the death penalty would be a deterent for someone...not revenge

[Arta]

For the purposes of legislation, it is best then to consider whether your opinion on this matter coincides with the overall best interests of society.  For example, I can see the prospect that an innocent is among 1 in every 400 million executed (essentially an innocent will never have his life taken away unjustifiably) as less detrimental to society than the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars and necessary jail space to hold dangerous criminals. 

This is still an economic argument. Firstly, 1 in 400m people is not no people: it is, quite clearly, 1 in 400m people. Thus, innocent people will be executed; it is merely a matter of time.

Besides, sentencing one to a life in prison is very similar to executing him/her -- many would rather be executed, but are not given that option (or right). 

The preference of the convicted is, of course, entirely irrelevant. In fact, if they would rather be executed, that's a somewhat good reason not to do it! Additionally, execution and incarceration are dissimilar. Incarceration provides the opportunity for miscarriages of justice to be at least partially corrected; execution does not. Incarceration provides the opportunity for rehabilitation (although probably not release in this case); execution does not. Incarceration is almost globally accepted as an acceptable means of punishment; execution is not: most of the countries in the world are abolitionist in law or practice.

This has been discussed at length in other threads.  Incarceration is a deterrent.  Death penalty is revenge.

QFT. Totally agree.

The abortion argument is different; in the beginning stages of pregnancy, it is inaccurate to refer to the fertilized egg "as a child," as though it had already been born or significantly developed.

I rather agree with MF. You're closing off a potential avenue of debate by stating this as fact, much as you accused me of doing earlier:

I am rather dissapointed that you were so dismissive of the other side.

[Rule]

For the purposes of legislation, it is best then to consider whether your opinion on this matter coincides with the overall best interests of society.  For example, I can see the prospect that an innocent is among 1 in every 400 million executed (essentially an innocent will never have his life taken away unjustifiably) as less detrimental to society than the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars and necessary jail space to hold dangerous criminals. 

This is still an economic argument. Firstly, 1 in 400m people is not no people: it is, quite clearly, 1 in 400m people. Thus, innocent people will be executed; it is merely a matter of time.

It is essentially no people, as it is probably more likely that the human race will no longer exist before 1 innocent is executed.  Of course it is an economic argument, and the axiom is that 1 innocent life may not be worth hundreds of millions of dollars and jail space.  That seems no less reasonable than your axiom that proof beyond reasonable doubt is insufficient for the death penalty (but is sufficient for life imprisonment).  The more successful argument should be the one that best aligns with the public interests of society, not the one that is more absolutely "morally" sound -- something that cannot be logically proven.  I don't know where you got the impression that I thought it wasn't an economic argument? Or does saying "it's economic" dismiss it, as though we both somehow have understood and acknowledged that an economic argument is unworthy of consideration?

Besides, sentencing one to a life in prison is very similar to executing him/her -- many would rather be executed, but are not given that option (or right). 

The preference of the convicted is, of course, entirely irrelevant. In fact, if they would rather be executed, that's a somewhat good reason not to do it! Additionally, execution and incarceration are dissimilar. Incarceration provides the opportunity for miscarriages of justice to be at least partially corrected; execution does not. Incarceration provides the opportunity for rehabilitation (although probably not release in this case); execution does not. Incarceration is almost globally accepted as an acceptable means of punishment; execution is not: most of the countries in the world are abolitionist in law or practice.

You cannot say that execution and life incarceration are dissimilar with a straight face.  They are both implemented with the idea that the criminal's life is being forfeited as justice for a life that has been lost.  At the core, they are essentially the same.  My point by explaining convict preference is to show you that incarceration can be more of a punishment than the death penalty -- so why be more extreme if you think there is a chance the convicted is innocent?  Sure, he may be released in 60 years or so when technology advances, but is that really any better than death?  Is it as practical as simply having a death penalty?

This has been discussed at length in other threads.  Incarceration is a deterrent.  Death penalty is revenge.

QFT. Totally agree. 

You poke at me for stating facts as fact, yet you praise this comment as truth, as though incarceration is absolutely never seen as revenge.  This behavior is transparently self-serving.

[Rule]

in the beginning stages of pregnancy, it is inaccurate to refer to the fertilized egg "as a child," as though it had already been born or significantly developed.

Stop stating this as fact.  It is obviously a primary source of debate within this argument.  Stop stating this as fact.  Stop stating this as fact.

Control your emotions please.  You often state that a fertilized egg is a child and you often call abortion murder as a starting point in your arguments.  You push the other side onto the defensive by pulling out comments like "You value the choice of the mother, so you are willing to murder the child."  If these are not facts, you certaintly act as though they are, and it's an extremely pushy and cheap tactic.  Because moral arguments are hard to formulate, you take the easy route and just assume your morals are axioms: then the debate becomes about whether murdering a child is worth the choice of the mother.  That's just how you like it, but it's not going to have any logical appeal to someone who carefully reads your arguments.  Let unbiased logic choose your arguments, don't let your emotions lead you and then attack the other side with moral judgements dressed up as fact.  Actually, if I remember correctly, you even went so far as to claim that "pro-choicers" experience cognitive dissonance, because they are trying to justify "murder."  Either you don't understand what you said about "the central point of the argument," or you're just all too eager to push your judgements onto other people and argue "for the win," rather than to come to a mutual understanding.  That's because you're right, right?

Another fact is that you cannot logically justify your idea that it's OK to kill intelligent animals but horrible murder to kill something that may eventually become human life (note: that something must be >= fertilized egg).



Further, what I said and you quoted is fact.  "It is inaccurate to refer to a fertilized egg as a "child," as though it had already been born or significantly developed".  That is fact.  That is fact.  That is fact.

It's fact just like it's fact that it would be inaccurate to refer to an 8 year old as a full grown man.  Are you going to acknowledge the facts though?  It seems that this is a completely different story...

Read it again.  You too Arta, since you seemed to be quite quick to get a shot in without really thinking about what I said.  This is something I also noticed in the marijuana thread.

[Invert]

This has been discussed at length in other threads.  Incarceration is a deterrent.  Death penalty is revenge.

The death penalty is guaranteed crime prevention. Incarceration is not guaranteed crime prevention and has never been a good deterrent. Criminals commit crimes inside jails all the time. Criminals escape from jails all the time.


BLAH!  I just wanted to use big bold font too since it will help make me right. 

[Arta]

It is essentially no people, as it is probably more likely that the human race will no longer exist before 1 innocent is executed.

I think that is a grossly optimistic argument. This 1 in 400m number seems to me to be entirely without foundation. In fact, I can tell you with reasonable certainty that innocent people have been executed: read about Derek Bently.

Of course it is an economic argument, and the axiom is that 1 innocent life may not be worth hundreds of millions of dollars and jail space. 

What if it was your mother? Your sister? Your lover? You? I think the value of life is incalculable. You appear not to, so let's agree to disagree on that point and move on.

The more successful argument should be the one that best aligns with the public interests of society, not the one that is more absolutely "morally" sound -- something that cannot be logically proven.

The best interests of society are preserved by not allowing the state to murder its citizens.

You cannot say that execution and life incarceration are dissimilar with a straight face.  They are both implemented with the idea that the criminal's life is being forfeited as justice for a life that has been lost.  At the core, they are essentially the same. 

I most certainly can, for the reasons given above, and for this one: an incarcerated person still has their life.

You poke at me for stating facts as fact, yet you praise this comment as truth, as though incarceration is absolutely never seen as revenge.  This behavior is transparently self-serving.

I did not praise his comment as truth. I identified his comment as something I agree with. As I understand it, QFT is a measure intended to ensure that one's position is not altered by the editing of old posts after the event.

[CrAz3D]

This has been discussed at length in other threads.  Incarceration is a deterrent.  Death penalty is revenge.

The death penalty is guaranteed crime prevention. Incarceration is not guaranteed crime prevention and has never been a good deterrent. Criminals commit crimes inside jails all the time. Criminals escape from jails all the time.

word.

.......I assume alot of people here object to the multiple child molestations resulting in execution, then?

[Grok]

I Win.

[Mephisto]

Someone ought to split this thread up into a couple different threads with the appropriate topic.

[Rule]

It is essentially no people, as it is probably more likely that the human race will no longer exist before 1 innocent is executed.

I think that is a grossly optimistic argument. This 1 in 400m number seems to me to be entirely without foundation. In fact, I can tell you with reasonable certainty that innocent people have been executed: read about Derek Bently.

I don't doubt that many innocents have been unrightfully executed under capital punishment.  The 1 in 400m is just a number I pulled out of nowhere for illustrative purposes.  However, if capital punishment were only used when DNA evidence is available, the incidence of an innocent being unjustly killed would probably be around 1 in 10000 million.  With these odds, don't you think it would be wise to consider the monetary and space benefits of capital punishment? 

Of course it is an economic argument, and the axiom is that 1 innocent life may not be worth hundreds of millions of dollars and jail space. 

What if it was your mother? Your sister? Your lover? You? I think the value of life is incalculable. You appear not to, so let's agree to disagree on that point and move on.

That's fine, but your perspective on this isn't very pragmatic.  For example, is one person's life worth more than a million peoples happiness?  Is a serial rapist's life worth the same as an innocent's life?  Aren't there cases when one's death has more value than one's life?  Would most of society agree that "the value of life is incalculable"?  If not, perhaps we shouldn't legislate on that assumption?  After all, the laws should be made on what will benefit society most, where "benefit" is defined by majority opinion.

The more successful argument should be the one that best aligns with the public interests of society, not the one that is more absolutely "morally" sound -- something that cannot be logically proven.

The best interests of society are preserved by not allowing the state to murder its citizens.

Perhaps that's something that you should argue instead of just state as truth.  Is that a general claim, or an absolute rule?  Are there no cases in which the best interests of society are preserved by allowing the state to kill a citizen?  Don't you think "murder" is an inappropriate word in the context you're using it?  Or are you using it because it's loaded language?  Should the state not be allowed to kill someone who is obviously dangerous and will ("beyond reasonable doubt") cause harm to another unless he is put to death?  Is this not in the best interests of society?

Edit: Changed words to different sizes so that my argument would be more factual, and less transparently emotional and aggressive.  Thanks, [size=0]Myndfyre[/size]!

I hope you're going to respond maturely; to do anything else would be wrong and childish.  I'm sure we can both agree that this is the right approach to take towards this argument-- thanks in advance. 

[shout]

Citizens of Wisconsin will soon be voting on if the death penalty should be legalized in the state, but only in cases where there is DNA evidence.

[CrAz3D]

#1  this is getting hard to read
#2  cool, shout